Services

We often help clients whose business components are undefined or mis-aligned. Those components might involve their:
business model; available technology; customer profile; deployed performance; tactical objectives; or resources.

We use diverse, complementary approaches, taking from the best of accepted standards and adding our own groundbreaking
proprietary approaches. From high level strategy to tactical project management, we tailor-make a comprehensive
solution for each challening engagement.

Typical Realignments:

Strategic Business Model and Technology
Among many possible approaches, we analyze the technology portfolio, evaluate available solutions, and define
performance targets.

fareENOUGH’s knowledge base and methodologies are designed to deliver cost-effectively its unique
combination of industry, technology, strategy and business economics strengths these and other areas.

fareENOUGH Principles

Quick Payback: With a systematic, but flexible approach adapted to the situation of each engagement, typical measurable client payback is less than 9 months.

New Insights: We deliver new value to our clients not just through a rigorous process and complete familiarity with the background, but because of the new insights we provide into what makes each client individually successful.

Vertical Flexibility: We are able to approach each situation at the level of greatest impact, wherever that may be, between the highest-level strategy and the most detailed project execution.

Case Specificity: Being able to clarify the relationships between conditions and results, we enable our clients to succeed where others have failed, or to avoid costly, otherwise unexpected missteps.

Well-Balanced Solutions: Lasting and meaningful results are built on using to our advantage the laws governing these four key dimensions: industry practices, strategy , technology, and quantitative economics.

Alignment: Opportunities to add value exist whenever any business’s actual practices are not aligned with each other in regards to the four key dimensions.

Contact Information

Our Story

In 2002, two highly experienced software industry colleagues decided to form a small company to develop
and market a particular software solution to the aviation industry. They'd worked together on a number of major airline and
transportation projects in the past, so they decided to fund the project by working as consultants to the airline and transportation
industry.

Turns out the industry needed quite a lot of the sort of consulting they offered: sensible, measurable, actionable. In fact,
the consulting engagenents ended up being so interesting that the original product idea never did get fully developed (although it's still a very good idea).

Traffic Data Valuation from In-flight Passenger Connectivity

Abstract

Airline executives regularly face adoption decisions for new technologies such as in-flight passenger Internet connectivity.
Key decisions factors include timing, aspects of possible functionality to privilege, and marketing/sales of the ensuing services.

Often, the inability to base decisions on from available data and an understood framework results in too cautious or too generic
approaches, which may prove problematic later.

By applying fareENOUGH’s proprietary quantitative methodology fQOM only to already available traffic and travel data, it is
possible to obtain quantitative, readily actionable answers tailored to an individual airline and its customers.

Introduction

From time to time, airline executives must consider technologies that although relatively untested in the market,
have at least the potential to significantly affect their future returns. One of those now undergoing rapid adoption
is airborne internet service, or more generally, In-flight Passenger-Ground Connectivity (IPGC). As with every new
service, the decision relies on limited information. The outcomes of similar technologies adopted in the past are
potentially relevant, but only as much as their relevant factors relate to critical factors of the new situation.
As to earlier adoptions of the same technology, even within the same airline, the problem is compounded by perception
biases of the outcome itself, and of the differences in relevant factors. The risk is that a technology adopted under
faulty or unclear premises will also be inadequately marketed, and eventually underperform relative to its profitability
potential like cabin seat power outlets, if not ultimately ending up in rejection like Connexion by Boeing.

How to get returns from the traffic data that is purchased from aviation data services, and from a carrier’s own travel
data, is a perennially open question. Such data represents an option to add value through better decisions, but one that
is often not exercised properly for lack of suitable ways to apply it to actual decisions.

fareENOUGH’s proprietary fQOM methodology solves both these dilemmas simultaneously, leveraging the investment in obtaining
or maintaining data on one hand, and in the new functionality on the other, for a specific case. fQOM does that by
identifying carrier- and passenger-specific parameters that are relevant to the evaluation of IPGC, and by finding our how
those specific parameters modulate the relationship between performance metrics for the new functionality and measures of
additional economic value that are affected. Unlike ad-hoc, conventional marketing studies that even requiring additional
expense and time, offer limited systematic or quantitative application, fQOM provides reliable answers from information
already inherent in the flight and passenger data available to aviation operators.

Figure 1 - Value vs. Selected Airline Parameters

In the case of IPGC, fQOM distinguishes five contributors to carrier value:

IPGC creates passenger savings via access to information for operations that would have to be done on the ground;
Additionally, IPGC enables travel-related information exchange and operations involving the passenger, which in turns enables savings to:

passenger, through delay avoidance;

carrier, through fewer ground resources;

carrier, through rebooking avoidance;

offset by the negative savings (costs) of solution deployment.

While carrier savings and costs go directly to the bottom line, passenger savings must first be extracted as revenue. Although all
contributors depend on implementation with the proper objectives, their importance depends to a large extent on the operations of
the carrier where IPGC is installed, and on the installation’s performance targets. Figure 1 shows the effect of two carrier
operating metrics on overall value potential.

While every airline has a different combination of relevant operating parameters,
whatever its business model, for the purpose of this analysis, all necessary information is available from traffic data.

Passenger-Specific Marketing

Figure 4: Value for 3 Specific Itinerary Profiles

Figure 5: Difference between Flights and Itineraries

Identifying the relevant passenger types through available metrics is essential to extracting value from the service provided in the
form of additional revenues. Passengers are endlessly categorized on subjective, ad-hoc indicators (psychometric, socioeconomic, etc.),
which involve additional expense to collect and maintain and are not necessarily useful. Although fQOM can incorporate those, in this
case fQOM extracts all the possible relevant information only from objective, quantitative travel data available at least for each airline’s
own passengers.

fQOM was applied to three itinerary profiles. Profile P1 has high shares of direct connections, and long connecting times between
endpoints with high departure frequencies. Profile P3 has a low percentage of direct connections, short connecting times, and at least
one low-frequency endpoint. Profile P2 is in-between the other two.

Although flights traffic and passenger itineraries have a lot in common, the two do not determine each other, as the simple example in Figure
5 shows.

Interpreting the Results

From the results as shown in Figure 3, the net benefit per aircraft of IPGC are generally positive, but with an order of magnitude difference between
airline type. This is due predominantly to the passenger data access component over longer airborne stretches above 10,000 ft., even constrained by a
passenger’s finite workday and constrained ground link speed. Schedule-related savings are proportionally the greatest for Type A3 carriers, which have
shorter airborne passenger times but more daily arrivals. Overall, the returns on IPGC will be much faster for airlines close Type A1, which can get
most of those returns by focusing on the infrastructure to enable non-travel-related passenger activity that would otherwise be possible only on the
ground. Airlines close to Type A3 should be much more cautious, and probably would need IPGC to help reduce operating costs. That requires integrating
passenger communications with the broader flight management and scheduling resources, implying that effective IPGC deployments at Type A3 airlines would
lag those done elsewhere.

From the results shown by itinerary type, (Figure 4) it is clear that while current industry pricing is consistent with the general average of extractable
passenger value, itinerary type heavily influences total value per passenger, especially involving the access to travel information. This indicates how
to extract value more fully for significant additional returns. Also, the itinerary specifics to be used for pricing are instantly and reliably known.

Irrespectively of traffic and travel patterns, most of the immediate benefits are received first by the passenger. This means that charging passengers
for IPGC is essential to retaining enough of the value created to justify deployment of an IPGC solution.

Actionable Results

fQOM gives airlines the ability to use their own passenger data and traffic data of other airlines to select and optimize onboard wireless capability,
as well as benchmarking the benefits of their own solution relative to the industry. To travel technology providers, fQOM gives the ability to refine
their capabilities in ways that match the specific requirements of an airline customer

An airline is able to set the right balance of its solution’s performance to suit its own characteristics. For example, F6 shows the relative value
added from relative increases in processing speed and ground link speed.

When the cost of acquiring and maintaining the additional performance is considered, at the return on $1 spent on faster transaction processing is
almost 400 times that of $1 spent on greater ground link speed.

Within a specific airline, whatever other pricing basis may be available, in any case, eventual returns can be significantly improved further by
pricing the service consistently with the itinerary, i.e., per flight hour with a minimum and a maximum, but with discounts for connections that are
very long (more passenger alternatives) or very short (greater direct carrier savings).